Forum:Article names with character names and titles
I want to discuss the practice of including title in an article name about characters in Downton Abbey. A key example being Robert Crawley, 7th Earl of Grantham. Why isn't it just Robert Crawley? The need for the title should only be necessary if there is some confusion about Robert Crawley because there is more than one character with that name. As far as I know there is not. I'd like to propose the removal of titles from article names unless it is there to make it clear that this is a specific character with that name because there is more than one. Why? For one, it saves alot of unnecessary typing. Secondly, if the title is wrong, you don't have to go through a million (exaggeration) pages fixing it. I've been noticing Earls of Grantham are a particular problem, but the problem has spread as the practice has spread. If there is a name shared by several characters, a disambig page should be made with at the top, but if there are only two of the same name, a simple disambig note with a link at the top as follows should suffice: :Were you looking for so and so, who is also named the same as such and such. Arguments for or against? Comments? Suggestions? -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 17 Nov 2012 9:47 AM Pacific :Unsure of the title, but something about within the article themselves in particular the Crawleys. I think it should just be Robert or Cora or Mary or Violet instead of Lord Grantham one sentence and Earl of Grantham the next. I think we are familar enough with these characters to just call them by their first name. It's also the way Julian Fellowes talks about them in interviews i.e. "Violet does x" CestWhat (talk) 18:52, November 17, 2012 (UTC) :::I agree with both of these suggestions. As has been said, we know the characters well enough to just use their first names within articles, and having a uniform method for refering to characters looks a lot neater and is easier for everyone. I also agree with us not needing the titles - a lot of the time it just confuses things, especially if there are multiple changes because of debate as to how many earls there have been. Bluebellanon (talk) 19:52, November 17, 2012 (UTC) :::While I do ''agree with this, I think it should stay as it is: people who are ''new to the show will not know the characters, thus the titles ''are ''needed. Naturally, of course, CestWhat and Bluebellanon will gang up on me, over power my thoughts and ignore me anyway. They ''usually ''do. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:42, December 27, 2012 (UTC) :::: :::::I think even new people will know characters names, and if they don't there are pictures on the front page of this wikia of the main characters along with the character names underneath. Bluebellanon (talk) 22:55, December 27, 2012 (UTC) Reopening this discussion Is there any chance of us getting a decision on this any time soon? We really could do with a uniform and accepted rule/guideline for naming of articles/characters on this wiki. It would have several advantages I think, if we simply used peoples first and last name Robert Crawley for example, rather than Robert Crawley, 5th Earl of Grantham. *The names of articles would be shorter and therefore easier to remember correctly, easier to type and we would have less mistakes of that sort *It would make the wiki look much more organised and uniform *There would be less confusion of what to call articles and less argument over editing/renaming of articles The full titles of characters could still be included in the article of course in order to record what that full title is - it would just be the name of the article that would change and be shorter. I would also like to suggest that in the body of articles that we also have an established rule for how we refer to a character - I'd say that we should go by their first name, having given their full name and titles once at the beginning of the article. We're familiar enough with the characters to do that I think. (Although we could always refer to them in the same way they are in the program if everyone thinks that would be easier.) This will also help make things more uniform, tidier, easier to understand, and cut down on editing disagreements. Anyway, I wanted to reopen this discussion as it's an issue that still hasn't been decided and it affects many articles, especially with many new ones being created for the new series. blue (talk) 12:38, June 20, 2013 (UTC) : Since there have been no objections to this suggestion I'm going to put this into place as policy. See here for the policy: Downton Abbey Wiki:Naming articles. --blue (talk) 12:34, August 22, 2013 (UTC)